EXAMINED BY MOORFIELD STOREY.
-It is natural that the words of Secretary Taft in r
gard to the Philippine Islands should carry greatweight with his countrymen. He speaks with an authority derived from his reputation as a judge, his'
experience as a governor of the islands, and his personal character. He speaks also with an evident conviction that he is right, while he presents the view which
every American would like to adopt, that the course of
this country from the beginning has been wise, unselfish and morally justified. If he is right he will welcome discussion, which must help every just cause, and
if he is wrong it is important that his error should be
shown, that public opinion may be directed wisely.
Though his position has been attacked with great force,
there still remains much to say, and this must excuse
another contribution to the discussion.
It is pleasant at the outset to agree with his fundamental proposition that our policy should rest on the
principle "The Philippines for the Filipinos."  The     _
question is what that principle requires us to do. His
position on that question may best be given in his own
words.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST SETTLE THE QUESTION.
His first contention is thus stated in his-speech on
April 21 before the Chamber of Commerce in New York,
when Mr. Taft said:      '
The people of the United States have under their guidance and control in the Philippines an archipelago of 3000
islands, the 'population of which is about 7,600,000 souls.
Of these 7,000,000 are Christians and 600,000 are Moros or
other pagan tribes,
In the Outlook of April 30, in speaking oifthe question, "When independence can be safely extended to the
Filipinos," he says:We may very much better rely on the good sense and
virtue of the American people rightfully to solve the probtj '..,.   '   -.J '" - L3 -' } I,, h; ".'.A7
\,  '.*.    1 ' -, D  3....;




lem when it arises, than to treat them as if they were not
to be trusted justly to decide a question because some of
them may acquire a pecuniary interest in the islands. I
have an abiding confidence in the power of the American
people to reach a right conclusion and put it into effect
against the selfish purposes of special interests.
To put it briefly, Mr. Taft insists that upon the American people rests the duty of solving the Philippine
problem, and he asserts that they are able to do it.
THE OBJECT OF TAFT'S POLICY.
The object of his policy is thus stated in his speech
to the New York Chamber of Commerce:
As a friend of the Filipinos, it is my anxious desire to enlarge that class of Americans Who have a real interest in
the welfare of the islands, and who believe that the United
States can have no higher duty or function than to assist
the people of the islands to prosperity and a political development which shall enable them to secure to themselves
the enjoyment of civil liberty.
He is careful, however, to point out that "civil libert!" does not mean political liberty, far less independence.  In the same speech he says that the United
States
has secured to every man, woman and child among the
Christian Filipinos all the rights contained in the Bill of
Rights in the Constitution of the United States, except the
right to bear arms and the right to trial by jury.
He proceeds:
All the substantial civil rights then are secured to the
Philippine people. They do not themselves exercise complete political control, but that is a very different thing
from civil liberty.
In the Outlook he emphasizes the distinction, saying
that the
"self-styled anti-imperialist... fails to distinguish between individual civil liberty and political control.. -.
The electoral franchise is not necessary to the enjoyment
of civil liberty and yet there are few of the opponents of
the policy of the administration in the Philippines who
recognize the distinction," and says, "What we are doing is
to teach the Filipino individual liberty."
THE METHOD OF ATTAINING THIS OBJECT.
The method of attaining this object is thus stated in
the speech to the Chamber of Commerce:
The first requisite of prosperity in the Philippine islands
is tranquillity, and this should be evidenced by a well-or



5
dered government. The Filipinos must be taught the advantage of such a government, and they should learn from
the government which is given them the disadvantages
that arise to everybody in the country from political agitation for a change in the form of government in the immediate future.... Why not take the broader policy,
which is that of doing everything beneficial to the Philippine islands, of giving them a full market, of offering them
an opportunity to have railroads built extensively through
the islands, and of having a tranquillity which is essential
to the development of their business and their property:
why not insist on the spread of the educational system, of
an improvement in the health laws, and subject everything
that is done in the islands to an examination as to whether
it is beneficial to the Filipino people, and then when all
has been done for the Philippines that a government can
do, and they have been elevated and taught the dignity of
labor, the wisdom of civil liberty and self-restraint in the
political control indispensable to the enjoyment of civil liberty, when they have learned the principles of successful
popular government from a gradually enlarged experience
therein, we can discuss the question whether independence
is what they desire, and grant it, or the retention of a
closer association with the country which, by its guidance
has unselfishly led them on to better conditions.
THE TIME REQUIRED.
His view as to the the time required may be gathered
from his article in the Outlook:
It may be that when the Filipinos have been transformed
into a people capable of safely maintaining an independent
self-government, they will ask it, and then I have no doubt
that it will be accorded them.
It may be, however, and that I think quite as likely,
that by thattime the Filipinos will be so well satisfied with the good resulting from a union with the
United States that they will prefer to maintain a
relation like that which now binds Australia and Canada to Great Britain and that the United States, on
the other hand, will then value its association with this
pearl of the Oriental tropics. But whatever the ultimate
decision, it is certain that the time for decisioni cannot
arise for a considerable period, probably several generations.
AMERICAN INVESTMENT MEANWHILE.
The idea that the United States will meanwhile learn
to value the islands is amplified in the New York speech,
where he says:
"It is estimated that not more than 5,000,000 acres of
land are owned by natives in the islands, and that the remainder, 65,000,000, is owned by the government"; that this
will be opened for settlement and will probably "be taken
up by both Filipinos and Americans," that the maximum




limitation for purchase of a company, 2,500 acres, "is much
too low for the cultivation of sugar," that "there is a provision in the law by which irrigation companies may own
stock in land companies, so that probably the limitation
may be evaded if private profit requires," and finally adds,
"it so happens, and it fortunately so happens, that generally everything we do for the benefit of the Filipinos and
the Philippines will only make their association with the
United States more profitable to the United States."
The limitation as to the number of acres which a company may buy was intended to prevent a few Americans
from monopolizing the land, and a suggestion that it
may be evaded, if sucl evasion pays, comes with a
singular infelicity from the officer who is charged with
the duty of enforcing the law.
He insists that no promise of ultimate independence
should now be made because
"a promise to give ultimate independence will be construed
by the more violent element, disposed to agitation, to be
a  promise to   grant independence in the near future
and during the present generation.'... "They would
be  certain  to  use~ the  promise  as  a   basis  for
immediate agitation."... While "the hope of success in
our work in the Philippines is tranquillity of the public mind and a condition of public attention in which the
conservative, peaceful and educated members of the community are able to give their best efforts and sympathy to
the existing government in its efforts to secure a real benefit to the people."... "The success of the experiment
we are making in the Philippines depends on having the
Filipinos understand that we are there for their benefit.
but that we expect to stay there indefinitely in working
out the good we propose to do them."
It is not surprising that Mr. Taft concludes that
"to make the terms of the Declaration of Independence apply
equally to the Filipinos as to the American colonists is to
be blind to the plainest facts and to sacrifice truth to an
impossible dogma and a rhetorical phrase."
This is Secretary Taft's policy as he has presented
it. More briefly stated, it is in substance this: The
American people, a self-sacrificing and conscientious
nation, having no object in view save the benefit of the
Filipinos, should retain the absolute control of the Philippines indefinitely, and at least for several generations,
meanwhile introducing education, railroads, sanitary
improvement and other good things, until.the Filipinos
are fit for independence, and then the American people should decide whether they are fit for independence




and also whether independence is good for them. During this period the Americans are to acquire larger and
larger interests in the islands and the Filipinos are to
enjoy such civil rights as Congress may grant them, but
the 'question of their independence must not be discussed
either in the Philippines or the United States.
HE DISTRUSTS AMERICANS IN PHILIPPINES.
Proceeding now to consider this policy, we may ask
in the first place whether Secretary Taft really believes
in "the good sense and virtue of the American people"
as thoroughly as he asserts, and if so, in which part of
the American people these qualities reside.
Not in those who now live in the islands, for he told
the Chamber of Commerce that
"the American merchants" there '*easily caught the feeling
of hostility and contempt felt by many of the soldiers for
the Filipinos, and were most emphatic in condemning the
policy of the government in attempting to attract the Filipinos and make them so far as might be a part of the new
civil order.
"The American newspapers which were established readily took the tone of their advertisers and their subscribers,
and hence it is that the American community in the Philippines today is largely an anti-Filipino community," prone
apparently in dealing with the natives "to call them names,
to make fun of them, and to deprive every effort toward
their advancement and development." He added with reason, "This is unfortunate and there must come into the
islands a new set of merchants who shall view the situation from an entirely different standpoint."
One is tempted to ask in passing how likely Americans are to settle in these islands since the Supreme
Court has decided that they lose their constitutional
rights when they go there, and may be convicted of
crime, not by a jury, but by the majority of a court consisting of four Americans and three Filipinos.
It is perhaps permissible to add in confirmation of
Secretary Taft's statement a few passages from the
letters of Denzil H. Taylor. This young man, brought
up in New Hampshire, and graduating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, went to the
Philippines in 1901, and was made one of the provincial
board which governed the province of Ilocos Norte in
Luzon, where he held the place of provincial supervisor with high praise from his associates until he died
at his post. On Mav 1~, 1902, he wrote:




I have a few words to say about teachers. Of course,
there are many good and faithful ones to whom nothing
but praise should be given, but of the majority, at least as
far as this province is concerned, this must be said: Never
before have such a number of incapables and cranks been
deported from any country as were sent here as teachers.
They are here simply for what they can get out of ithave neither principles nor morals. They domineer over
and oppress the natives. Three in the province-two of
them H-arvard graduates-we have been obliged to take
arms 'from, as being unfit to use firearms. They would
enter towns in the dead of night and fire right and left to
'frighten the natives.
In another letter he said:
As to morals and right living, what sort of an example
are many of our soldiers, our officers, and even our schoolteachers setting to the to-be-uplifted brother?  Many a
man when he leaves America seems to leave behind all ideas
of right living-anything and everything is allowable.
That these conditions still exist may be gathered from
the letter of Mr. Leupp to the New York Evening Post
of June. 11, it being remembered that the writer is a
strong friend of the president. I quote:
That these wishes of the American element are making
some disturbance continues clear. A well-known traveling
newspaper correspondent, who writes from anything but
an anti-imperialistic point of view, has devoted considerable attention to these complaints in his letters from Manila. He says: "These men are the loudest and most bitter
in their criticisms of the conduct of affairs. They disapprove most vigorously the friendly attitude of our government toward the natives, and denounce the policy of 'benevolent assimilation' as preposterous and visionary. They
complain because Judge Taft and his associates have shown
so much solicitude for the welfare of the natives and so
little for the American residents. They object to the appointment of so many Filipinos to office, and instead of
cultivating the good will of the native population, and creating a demand for American goods, they spend their time
and energy finding fault and making gloomy predictions."
The people here described have sent some emissaries to
Washington to convince the authorities that things are all
wrong in the Philippines, that the iron hand of white su.
premacy should replace the Taft policy of the "Philippines
for the Filipinos." What they call a chamber of commerce
in Manila is really an organization for bringing about conditions more favorable to the exploitation of the islands,
without reference to the welfare of the natives. The admission of Chinese labor is the first thing the chamber of
commerce wants in this program.
The relations between the "American element" there




and the Filipinos are mostly seriously strained; the newspapers which cater to it never say a word for the Filipinos,
nor, for that matter, of the civil government. The despicable- "little brown brother" poem has been widely circulated. It is about as true a picture of the Filipinos as
"The Leopard's Spots" is of the negro in America. No
one can read its fierce arraignment of the natives and learn
that it is almost a national hymn with our soldiers here,
and then imagine that relations between the two races are
very cordial.
Secretary Taft is clearly right in thinking that little
is to be expected from the Americans now in the islands
toward the solution of our problem.
HE DISTRUSTS AMERICANS AT HOME.
How is it with the Americans at home?     Does he
really think that they can be trusted "rightfully to solve
the problem when it arises?" Is he willing to let them
decide even the preliminary question whether the problem has arisen?  Apparently not, for in his speech to
the Chamber of Commerce he says of the men who have
signed a petition for Filipino independence and whom
in the Outlook he describes as "a number of excellent
and prominent gentlemen":
Why should the good people who signed the petition intermeddle with something the effect of which they are very
little able to understand?
Who are these men whose ability to understand the
Philippine situation is denied? The list includes Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Farley, more than 50
bishops, more than 60 judges, many of our most prominent men in other walks of life, a long list of college
presidents and leading educators, men like ex-President
Cleveland. President Eliot of Harvard, President Schurman of Cornell, himself not without experience in the
Philippines, ex-Senator Edmunds, Charles Francis
Adams, Andrew Carnegie, Wayne MacVeagh, and thousands of others who are respected throughout the country. These men are the spiritual, the intellectual leaders of the American people. If these men are "little
able to understand" where in our broad land are we to
look for intelligence? If such American leaders must
not "intermeddle" what reason have we to share Secretary Taft's "abiding confidence in the power of the
American people to reach a right conclusion?" When




he says that "the people of the United_ States have
under their guidance and control these islands," why
does he tell them, when they try to guide, that they
are intermeddling with what they are unable to understand?
The government of the Philippines by the American
people upon this theory is to be a government not only
without   the  consent   of  the    governed,  but
without the consent of the governors. Does not Secretary Taft see that he must concede to ex-Senator Edmunds, President Schurman, and men like these, the
ability to understand the Philippine situation, or else
admit that there are no Americans who have this ability,
unle'sindeed he claims peculiar intellectual gifts for
hinmself and his late associates on the commission?
If the American people lack the needed ability in
this generation. is it not a violent assumption that their
sons and grandsons will be more able and more intelligent? If the Americans of today are unfit to deal with
the prollem. must the Philippines remain in the hands
of people unable to understand their needs, until a new
and wiser American people has supplanted the present
generation   This is not a comforting hypothesis either
for Americans or Filipinos.
Surely if the bad Americans on the islands and the
good Americans at home are alike not to be trusted. no
one is left. tunless by) American people we are to understand only the president and his appointees, the secretary of wa;r and the Philippine commission.
If Secretary Taft is right we must have not only
"a new   set of merchants" in the islands, but a
new generation of Americans at home before the
American  peopl/p can  think  of governing. Meanwhile tllh fato of som'r 8.000,000 of Asiatics hangs
upon the life and health of the half-dozen Americans
who alone have the ability to understand their needs, unless indeed there is a sacramental virtue in an appointment to the Philippine Commission, which gives the
men who receive it an ability denied to Cardinal Gibbons, President Eliot. Andrew Carnegie and their associates. Is it not perfectly apparent that Secretary Taft
does not mean that the American people should deal with
the Philippine problem. but that it should be left wholly
in the hands of the president and such men as he may
appoint to govern the islands?




11
DO AMERICANS KNOW THE TRUTH.
Let us go a little further. Why are leading Americans "little able to understand" the effect of their
action? Is it because the truth as to the situation in the
Philippine Islands has not been told them? If not, who
is responsible? We remember the censorship. We cannot
forget that Secretary Taft himself in his testimony before Senator Lodge's committee gave us no idea of the
extent to which torture, destruction and reconcentration had been carried in the attempt to conquer the Filipinos. We remember that Major Gardener's damaging
report as governor of a province was withheld, and we
recall Secretary Taft's explanation of the withholding.
We have not forgotten that steps were taken to have
Major Gardener testify before the committee, when it was
discovered that a court of inquiry must be held in the
Philippines, and that he must remain there to meet it.
Why has the report of that court never been printed?'
It is within a year that E. B. Bryan, the general
superintendent of education issued to teachers in the
Philippines a circular beginning:
Because of our great distance trom the States and the
prevailing conditions here being different from conditions
there, it is very difficult for home people to correctly understand many things that we may be disposed to say to them
in letters. They get a wrong impression.... Teachers
are requested to exercise such care as the situation demands both in their statements, and by special direction to
correspondents, that all private communications shall be
treated as such. Any misuse of matter sent to the States
will be treated as if authorized by the party sending it.
Here again we have the same distrust of the American
intelligence. The teachers employed to instruct the
Filipinos in a language which they do not understand
must not write in their own language to their friends at
home about what they see and hear in the islands. Have
we any reason to think that the American people have
ever been told the whole truth?
We are given to understand that everything in the
Philippines is pleasant and peaceful. Why should
teachers be forbidden to tell us all they see? The difficulty is said to be in the lack of intelligence here. What


1. See appendix A.




12
has happened to our people that makes them so dull on
this subject alone? 2
Secretary Taft's administration, the whole policy of
his party, was on trial when he spoke, and is still on
trial. Would he claim even for himself immunity from
the human temptation to put the best face possible upon
the matter, and not to bring forth all the facts which
might provoke hostile criticism?  If he is so above
temptation. are there many like him?
OR ARE AMERICANS TOO BUSY TO LEARN IT?
Or does Secretary Taft mean that the people of America are so immersed in their own affairs, so busy, so indifferent that even their most intelligent men have not
given the necessary time to understand the Philippine
situation? If this is true-if during the last five years
when our new departure has excited universal interest
and the whole question was new, such men as President
Eliot and Wayne MacVeagh and others like them have
not had the time or taken interest enough in the subject
to form an intelligent opinion on the question whether
the Philippines should be promised independence, where
can we hope to find men who will take the necessary interest, and when will they have time enough to study the
subject?  Will it only be when the American people
agree with Secretary Taft that he will show "the abiding
confidence" which he professes in the power of the
American people to reach a right conclusion and put it
into effect?
If this is Mr. Taft's view, it is confirmed by the Hartford Courant. a strong Republican journal, which thus
describes the attitude of its constituents:In our opinion there is not today as much interest in
these people as there is in the fading American Indians.
The public will never be aroused to see a live issue in the
political welfare of so remote a population as those of these
far-off islands. The question of their position with regard
to the constitution is to the average citizen an altogether
academic one. If the government is looking after them,
he concerns himself no further and cannot Se made to.
If the people of Connecticut feel thus, is there reason
to believe that the bulk of the American people have any
2. See appendix B.




13
more conscience or recognize more clearly the obligations imposed upon them by their "guidance and control" of the Filipinos?
THE PRESENT SITUATION TYPICAL.
Secretary Taft's policy is founded on the assumption
that the American people are, and will continue to be
unselfish in their attitude toward the Filipinos, and that
they can be trusted to keep men in office anxious to carry
out this unselfish policy. Does he not see that the existing situation is typical, and such as it is, it always
will be?
There will always be a body of resident Americans,
anxious to make money quick and looking down upon
the natives, who will despise them, misinterpret them,
and try to profit at their expense, just as the resident
Americans are doing now. There will always be governors naturally solicitous for the success of their administration, and never willing to disclose the facts which
might lead to criticism or condemnation. They will
always tell the American people, as Mr. Taft tells us
now, that they are "very little able to understand" the
situation. There will always be the busy, good-natured
American people, knowing little and caring less about
their distant subjects, taking, as the Courant says, less
"interest in these people" than "in the fading American
Indians."  Between the insistent force of -resident
Americans keenly alive to their own interests, attacking
such a policy as Secretary Taft's as they attack it now.
and  their governors, who   are likely to   be  recalled at their instance, there will be our people believing what Americans say because they are their own flesh
and blood, and content to-let the government manage
the islands.
If the men who today govern the islands are honest
and benevolent, where in human history does Secretary
Taft find any warrant for the belief that under circumstances like these they will continue such for a hundred
years and always resist American greed in behalf of
Filipino rights?  The American people will no more
resist the selfish demands of American adventurers, or
protect the Filipino against them, than they have resisted the inroads upon the Indians or protected them
against spoliation, than they have protected the rights
<of the colored race, or than they protected the Southern




14
States from Northern "carpet-baggers." The American
people will deal with the Filipinos as the English have
dealt with the Boers or with the people of India, who,
after centuries of English rule, are not so near independence as they were at the beginning.
If the American people can ever be trusted to settle
this question. they can be trusted now. They never will
be more fit than they are today, and it is as visionary.
to suppose that after a century they will be wiser or
better than their leaders are today, as it is to believe that
the Philippines will attract in the future any better
American-l than those who have gone there.    While
the conditions  of life in the United    States are
what they are. our best citizens will stay here rather
than tal;e up their abode in any region whose climate
and wilose conditions are such as prevail in the Philippines. In all the centuries during which England has
ruled India no Englishman has gone there to settle and
make liis hoine. and for the same reason no American
will e\Tr go to the Philippines. except as an official for
a; brief torm. or in the lhope of returning richer than he
went.
Mr. Taft's first proposition is contradicted by all
humnn (experience. The American people cannot and
will not govern the Filipinos, but his argument rests on
the assumpltion that they will govern and govern benevolently. Against it I would place the immortal words of,incoln': "No man is good enough to govern another
witlhout tlit other's consent." The governor, be he man
or nation. sees hli own side. his own interest, and is a
judge in his own case wllen ever the governed questions
his nets.
THE FILIPINOS HAVE NO RIGHTS.
TIurnilag to Secretary Taft's second proposition. that
thie (,overnmenit "has secured to every man. woman and
c}hii il among tlle ( lristian Filipinos all the rights containedl inl he bill of rights in the constitution of the
Tlnited States except tlhe right to bear arms and the right
to 1ie tried bv jury." it must be assumed that he believes
this.
Is it not. however. true that not one constitutional
right is secured to any Filipino? Do not all these rights
rest on act of Congress. which may be repealed at will?
But assulingl tlat this iv security, is the right of free




speech, of a free press, of public assembly, secured to the
Filipinos? May they now hold public meetings to agitate for independence?  May they criticise the government at will, or does the government through the judges
of its appointment, exercise the right to punish
criticism?
Are their persons and property protected against unwarrantable searches and seizures? Have not the people of a whole province been subjected to reconcentration, severe and protracted, in order that the government might catch a few men, who, by its own description, were mere robbers, with whom the people had no
sympathy? Has not this been done since the proclamation of peace two years ago?
Are rights which the government may suspend at will
"secured" to the people in\any just sense?  "Civil liberty," as the secretary is careful to call it, can never
bt secured to any people without political power to maintain it. The rights of women and children in this country are secure without political power (to take a case
which the secretary seems to consider in point), but
they are all represented by men who have political
power, who make and unmake the government by their
votes. Their rights are protected by the strongest defense known to man, the domestic affections. If
Mr. Taft proposed to give the Filipino men the
suffrage, his illustration would be pertinent, but to say
that the men of one nation may rule the men of another,
with whom they have no real sympathy, because they
rule their own wives and children, is not convincing.
Secretary Taft's whole statement about "civil liberty"
means only this, that the government of the United
States will give the Filipinos such privileges as it pleases
and will take them away when it pleases, as may best
secure the maintenance of its authority. Of rights, as
we understand rights, which no Legislature and no executive can take away, they will have none, and of power
to determine their own rights they will have no
vestige. It is absolute government, in name by our people; in fact by the president and his officers.
THE DECLARATION      OF INDEPENDENCE FORBIDS
OUR COURSE.
To Mr. Taft's argument that our course in the Philippines is not inconsistent with the principles laid down






it;
in the Declaration of Independence as ipr reted by
our conduct, there are two answers:-  -
1. The fact that in various cases our people have
not lived up to their principles no more affects the principle- thlemselves. than the persistent violation of the
Ten Commandments by 'generations of men changes the
meaning of the Commandments or proves that they are
wrong nor than the fact that the Christian nations laid
waste China and murdered her people in revenge for
the attack on the legations proves that revenge is a
Christian practice.
2. Our most conspicuous violation of the Declaration, African slavery, cost this nation dear, and has
been repented in sackcloth and ashes. We would avoid
inviting a similar chastisement by a fresh offense. The
same arguments which are now used to prove that the
Declaration of Independence does not forbid our course
in the Philippines, were then used to prove that it did
not prevent slavery.  Secretary Taft will find in the
speeches of Stephen A. Douglas during his debate with
Abraham Lincoln a fuller statement of those arguments
than he has made, and he will find in the speeches of
Lincoln a more complete reply than I can make.
His policy of giving the Filipinos education, roads,
railways and other good things is only benevolent
despotism. For a hundred years men of an alien race
are to decide what the Filipinos need and how their
wants can be supplied. and by this experience they are
to he trained for self-government.
Secretary Taft seems to confuse self-government with
American self-government. The Declaration of Independence was exactly what its name implies, a declaration of national independence, not a declaration in favor
of any form of government. It asserted the right of
ever! people to govern themselves. It did not undertake
to say how. No people in the world are governed
exactly  as we   are, and   our institutions  would
not suit other men. Russia is a despotism; Japan an
empire with some popular features.  Germany, Italy,
France, England. Austria, each has its own system.
Shall we say that Russia ought not to be independent,
because all that Secretary Taft says of the Filipinos
may with equal truth be said of the Russians? The
Filipinos are entitled to decide for themselves what
form of government they prefer. and which is best suited




17
to their needs. We may lead other nations to follow us
by example, but we may not compel them by force. All
that Mr. Taft says of the Filipinos might have been said
of the Japanese when Perry landed on their islands, of
the Mexicans in 1848, of the Cubans two years ago. These
nations framed their own government and have succeeded. There is no case in history where a nation has
learned to govern itself by being governed against its
will by a foreign nation, and I defy Mr. Taft to suggest
one. Nations and men learn to use their powers by
practice and their own mistakes are their best teachers.
SECRETARY TAFT DOES NOT DESIRE PHILIPPINE
INDEPENDENCE.
It is clear, however, that the secretary's policy is not
intended to secure independence. He himself tells us
that it will make the United States value more highly
"its association with this pearl of the oriental tropics."
The phrase-i-s not altruistic, nor are nations prone to
let go what they prize. His policy will plant more
American capital in the islands, it will induce more and
more Americans to go there, and after this process has
gone on for a century, he thinks it will be soon enough
to consider whether the Filipinos are fit to govern themselves and whether they shall be given independence.
He does not expect them then to ask it, and
this expectation at,least is reasonable, for it may
be doubted whether if his policy prevails there
will then be a Filipino people. The process of weakening them and crushing their aspirations will hale been
complete, and America, secure in their possession, will
readily decide that they are not fit for independence
and are too valuable to lose, just as- England, after a
much longer lapse of years, still clings to India and is
extending her sway over nations now free rather than
giving freedom to those who are now her subjects.
Secretary Taft's policy will not succeed, but if it does
there will never be a Philippine Republic, and we shall
be g.:lty of destroying an Eastern people as we have
des+. oyed the natives of our own continent.
I-E DECEIVES HIMSELF.
Secretary Taft told the Chamber of Commerce that
"we have tranquillity in the islands." He is afraid that
a promise of independence in the future would disturb
it by raising unfounded hopes. "Order reigns in War



18
saw."  Does the secretary suppose that a people which
has done and which has suffered so much since 1898 to
win its independence, which has been subdued at such
frightful cost by war, by torture, by reconcentration,
has ceased to desire independence? Is there in human
history an example of such instant submission to an
alien conqueror? How many of England's oppressive
acts have Irishmen forgotten? Are the memories of our
Civil War effaced?  Is it possible that the Filipinos
have forgotten their husbands, their fathers, their
brothers, and their sons, whose graves are yet freshly
green?
The secretary deceives himself if he fancies that our
silence will make them forget the cause which they have
so much at heart. Even if they are "tranquil" now,
how long will they remain so with the American resident
population abusing them and the government denying
them any hope of better things? Let them understand
from us that their object is our object, that we will work
with them for their independence, that they shall have
what Cuba has. and they will be patient, but we cannot
assure tranquillity by postponing the thought of independence for generations, and leaving it to be granted
then by men whose capital will have been invested in
these islands and who will have a hundred reasons for
holding them where we have one.
"Generations" hence means never, and such postponement closes the door of hope to all men now living
and their sons and grandsons. To suppose that because
we do not say independence, the Filipinos do not think
of it, pray for it, and plot for it, is to imitate the ostrich and to deny the Filipinos the ordinary attributes
of men. Secretary Taft would suppress the dearest aspirations of a whole people and expect them to submit
without a murmur.
It is impossible in one paper to answer all that the
secretary has said. It is the purpose of this paper to
point out that he really denies the American people any
right to discuss the Philippine question, and insists
that we must all submit to the views which are entertained by him. This is not popular government, and
that it is suggested shows how readily tyranny abroad
becomes absolutism at home. His policy is sustained
by assumptions as to human nature which are at variance
with all experience. They cannot bear discussion. -His






19
words are a silk glove for an iron hand, and they mean
that the United States ought to govern the Philippine
Islands as it likes and as long as it likes, making them
daily more valuable to it and harder to part with, and
that its power must be exercised by administrative officers, who will be uncontrolled by constitution or by
public opinion, since the Filipinos without the ballot
will have no voice that their rulers will respect, and
the"Americans will as now believe their own countrymen and let the government deal as it will with these
unknown subjects.   It is absolute government for
8,000,000 of men, now and forever, which Secretary
Taft preaches.
Against it' let us set the everlasting truths of the
Declaration of Independence.
II.
Secretary Taft's careful statement of his Philippine policy at Cambridge was skilfully prepared and
well calculated to allay distrust as to Philippine
conditions. As it is always difficult, however, for contemporaries, who are subject to the passions and prejudices of the hour, to grasp the significance of passing
events, I venture to ask the readers of this paper for a
moment to occupy the historical standpoint and to consider briefly a few points which should be weighed in reply.
SECRETARY TAFT DEFENDS HIS OWN CASE.
In the first place, Secretary Taft has been some years
the virtual governor of the Philippine islands. As
such he has adopted and carried into effect a certain
policy, and the question is whether that policy has been
wise. His statements of facts and conditions, his account of the people, his report of what has been done,
come from a man.who is speaking in his own defense,
who is a possible candidate for high office in the future,
and who, because he is a man, naturally presents his
own side of the case. In this matter he is inevitably an
advocate, not a judge. No Roman proconsul, no English ruler of India, no president, no mayor of a city, in
describing his own administration, fails to present his
own conduct in a favorable light. Lord Dalhousie, un



20
der whose rule the Indian mutiny broke out, regarded
himself as a missionary of civilization. Only a little
more than two years ago Secretary Root told the country that our war in the Philippines had been conducted
"with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare, with careful and genuine consideration for the
prisoner and the non-combatant, with self-restraint and
with a humanity never surpassed."
To every question of administration there are two
sides, the side of the governor and the side of the governed. Secretary Taft gives us one side; who can give
us the other?
Government bv the people is successful because the
governors' and the governed are the same, and as Mr.
Taft himself well says, "It is certain that-in the long
run no one is likely to look after one's interest so well
as the person whose interest is involved." The voters
know many things which they could not prove, and act
upon their knowledge. Power is selfish. If the people
have it, they will look after themselves; if a party has
it, the party looks after itself, and if a man has it, he
looks after himself.
All that Secretary Taft says may be true. A large
majority of his countrymen believe it, because he says it.
Suppose it were largely false,-they would believe it i
just the same. They naturally believe what the American governor says about the Filipinos, however little
they believe the assertions of their rulers at home, and
they will never take the word of the Filipinos against
him. It is because now and always they will believe only
their own countrymen, that the American people, and
any people, it unfit to govern another. It is because a
man cannot be judge in his own case that, as Lincoln
says, "No man is good enough to govern. another without
that other's consent." It is one insurmountable objection to our policy in the Philippines that the side of the
Filipinos will never be understood by this country.
THE STATEMENT TESTED.
Let us now test Secretary Taft's statements in the
light of history. Take, for example, this: "Not by our
seeking, not by any greed of territory, but by circumstances over which we could exercise no control, we were
forced into a relation with the Filipino people which
imposed obligations on us we could not escape."
I




21
Will the historian believe this? Only when he believes that "duty" and uncontrollable circumstances
forced Spain to conquer Peru and Mexico, Russia to
seize Manchuria, or England to make war upon Thibet.
Let us take another illustration. Mr. Taft begins his
catalogue of achievements in these words: "Well,.what
have we done? First, we have suppressed the insurrection."
How will history regard this statement? It will observe first, perhaps, that Mr. Taft says:
We were in a sense allies of Aguinaldo and his followers,
united for the purpose of driving Spain out of the Philippines.... To desert him as an ally, to restore to Spain
Manila, which was the key of the islands, and thus to enable Spain to drive him back into the interior and finally
disperse his forces, would have been violating an obligation which the circumstances of our joint action created,
and would doubtless have subjected the islands to another
and a bloody war.
History will ohberve next that until the treaty with
Spain was ratified, which was after the battle of February 5, or, as the secretary says, "on April 11, 1899,"
"by exactly a two-thirds vote of the Senate," the United
States had no-title to a foot of land in the islands, no
right to control a single Filipino, while.by the protocol
our forces were forbidden to occupy anything but the
city and harbor of Manila.
History will read in the official report of Gen. Otis
that on February 4 our forces opened fire on a Filipino
patrol and killed two men; that there followed "an exchange of fire between opposing lines for a distance of
about two miles," and that at daybreak Gen. Otis attacked the Filipinos and a battle followed which lasted
till 5 P. M., of which Otis says: "The engagement was'
one strictly defensive on the part of the insurgents and
of vigorous attack by our forces;" that "it is not believed that the chief insurgents wished to open hostilities at this time;" that the next day the Filipinos asked
for an armistice and a chance to negotiate; that this request was refused, and that the war thus begun was
prosecuted with the result that Aguinaldo was driven
"back into the interior," his forces were finally dis^persed, and the islands were subjected "to another
and a bloody war."
Will not history ask how the Filipinos in their native




22
land can-be called 'insurgents" against the United
States, when the latter had acquired no right or title
of any kind to their allegiance and it was very doubtful
whether the Senate would ratify the treaty, or, as their
contemporaneous action shows, undertake to exercise
sovereignty over the islands, if they did ratify it?
Will it not ask whether the Filipinos were guilty of
insurrection, because they tried to defend themselves
against a "vigorous attack" by the American forces,
who, in making it, violated the protocol, or how they can
be charged with responsibility for a contest which it is
admitted they did not desire, and which they vainly
tried to stay at the first opportunity? The fable of the
wolf and the lamb furnishes a striking precedent.
-— Will not history put the far more searching question:
/'If your obligations to Your allies forbade your allowing
Spain to attack them, disperse their forces and subject
the islands 'to another and a bloody war,' did not these
obligations prevent your doing these very things yourselves?"
How will Secretary Taft answer this question at a
bar. where facts and not vague assertions alone will
weigh? Can he explain now the United States could
do with honor what we could not have allowed Spain
to do without infamy?
THE CHARGES AGAINST AGUINALDO ARE CHARGES
AGAINST OURSELVES.
Let us take another position of the secretary. He
savs that though "Aguinaldo had elements of leadership
in that he summoned about him when authority grew
in his hands the able and educated of his people to aid
him," we could not have abandoned the islands to their
charge because his government was "that of the military
dictator," the admirable constitution "never was put in
force, its guaranties were never enjoyed by the people,
the result of the government was oppressive, arbitrary
action and disturbance greater than ever occurred in the
time of Spain."
Until President McKinley issued his proclamation of
"benevolent assimilation." nay, till after the fighting
had actually begun, there is no evidence that Aguinaldo's government did not command the confidence of his
people or seemed to them oppressive. From necessity
Aguinaldo. while forming his government, exercised




23
arbitrary power, as did Bolivar; from necessity also,
while his unhappy country was struggling for national
existence against our army, constitutional guaranties
were ignored as they were during our civil war. But
these things were the consequences, not the causes, of
our action, and no one can read President MIcKinley's
proclamation of December, 1898, and compare it with.
Secretary Taft's speech, and not anticipate the verdict
of history on the secretary's argument.
Nay, if it is true that Aguinaldo's constitution was
never put in force and his government is therefor to
be condemned as arbitrary, what shall we say of our own
government, which is also uncontrolled by any constitution? Does this argument cut only one way?
But with what grace can we plead that Aguinalde's
government rests upon a cornerstone of "violence and
bloodshed," or say that conflicting factions might have
caused anarchy?  What worse results could have come
to the [unhappy Filipinos from struggles among themselves!(which we guess would have occurred-just as
we falsely guessed that they would occur at once among
the Cubans) than have followed our benevolent course?
We now know that our policy there has resulted in a
loss of life and a destruction of property, in a burning
of towns and a devastation of fields, which the Filipinos
-with their imperfect means of destruction and with
their interest in their own property, could never have
inflicted upon themselves. We know that we conquered
them bv fire and sword, by cruel and persistent torture,
by wholesale reconcentration, by such measures as were
ordered by Gen. Smith and by Gen Bell, and we know
to our shame what a dark and bloody chapter of history
was written by our armies in the Philippines to our
lasting dishonor. 'As we did to our' allies what we could
not let the Spaniards do, so to save the Filipinos from
shedding each other's blood, we have shed far largerquantities ourselves.
HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS CRUELTIES.
Secretary Taft was in the islands and in high authority while these things were done. He was there charged
with a duty thus defined by President McKinley in
words which he quotes: "A high and sacred obligation
rests upon the government of the United States to give




I/


24


protection for property and life, civil and religious free(ldomn and wise and unselfish guidance in the paths of
peace and prosperity to all the people of the Philippine
Islands. 1 charge this commission to labor for the full
performance of this obligation."
No action or protest of Secretary Taft against torture
and cruelty has been made public. When he testified
before the Senate committee he certainly did not tell
them what crimes had been committed in our name, but
his testimony so far as it went tended to disguise the
facts.  In this sad chapter of conquest he now finds
nothing to regret, since he points with pride to the fact
that "we have suppressed the insurrection," as the first
of our glorious achievements in the Philippine Islands.
The general character of Secretary Taft's statements
about the people of the Philippines, their defects, and
our good deeds, may probably be judged from the assertions, which we are able to compare with facts that we
know. If we cannot compare the others, it is because
we have no such method of ascertaining the facts from
the Filipino side. They are the plaintiffs, unrepresented by counsel. Mr. Taft's speech is inevitably the argument for the defense.
LIBERTY IS WON THROUGH CONTEST.
Let me ask another question:    Suppose there were
factions. and even contests among the Filipinos? Have
not such contests characterized the progress of every
nation toward freedom? The wars of the-Roses, the rebellion against the Stuarts under Cromwell and the
Revolution in England, the many contests in France
and its bloody Revolution, the bitter feuds between rival
Italian cities, may easily be recalled. It would be as
difficult for Mr. Taft to name the country now independent in which struggles have not occurred, as it is to
name one which has learned to govern itself through being governed by a foreign conqueror.
HIS POLICY WOULD CREATE NEW RACE PROBLEMS.
Let me state briefly another point. Secretary Taft's
position rests upon the assumption that the Filipinos
are unfit to govern themselves.   He, an enlightened
American, claims that the people of the.United States
are a superior race. entirely competent to govern wisely
this inferior people. What he believes will be believed




just as firmly by a. large majority of his countrymen,
and their feeling will surely be entertained by those
who go from America either to govern the Filipinos or
to make money in the islands.
He argues that independence should not be promised
because "the presence of the United States in the islands
is necessary to maintain order and sustain a well-ordered
government, to secure civil rights to the people, and to
aliens with vested interests." and he dwells upon the
necessity of "constant watchfulness to protect against
abuses by the populace, and a strong party spread all
over the islands."
He desires to induce Americans to settle in the islands
and to invest their capital there.
He suggests that at some time in the future it will
be a question whether the Filipinos are fit for independence, and that the American people shall then decide that question.
Is it not clear that whenever this question is raised
the Americans who have made the Philippines their
home, who have invested money there, and who regard
the Filipinos as inferior, will use exactly the same arguments that Mr. Taft now uses against the surrender
of the islands? Will not they protest and with great
force against being turned over to the government of
an inferior race? Will they not dwell upon their "vested interests"?  Will they not raise every bugbear that
the secretary raises now? If not, they will be unlike
every other people in history, and unlike themselves as
we know them now.
If the resident Americans are given a voice in the
government of the islands, and it is impossible to believe
that American citizens will long be denied a voice in
the government of a territory under our sway where
they have made their homes, we shall have in these
islands, as we have in the South now, a self-styled superior race and an inferior race in contact. The Americans now in Manila are strongly "anti-Filipino," as Mr.
Taft himself tells us. They call the natives "niggers,"
and think of them as such. They will never willingly
surrender power to them.
Is it not clear that we are establishing in the Philippines the exact race problem that-exists at home, which
has been and is a prolific seed of woe, which has proved




26
too difficult for our people to solve, and which is full of
evil possibilities?
Perhaps this idea was in Mr. Taft's mind on February
20. 1902, when Senator Culberson asked him to tell -the
Senate committee the grounds of his objection to the acquisition of the islands, and he replied: "Because I am
not an expansionist and I would much prefer that we
should proceed in the United States to make the government better here than to go to distant possessions. I
said so at the time I was appointed, and I have not
changed my mind in that respect."
He justifies our remaining on the ground that we
must govern "the Philippines for the Filipinos." He
says that their interests require our care. The Filipinos,
after a full experience of our benevolence, do not share
his opinion, and if he is considering only their interests,
their opinion is entitled to control. Is it not monumental assumption for any man to suppose that he or
his people can govern a foreign nation better than they
can govern themselves?
HE AIMS AT PERMANENT CONTROL.
But when we read Secretary Taft's speeches'through,
we find that his wish is to make these islands a permanent possession. He believes that the United States will
learn to value "this pearl of the oriental tropics."  He
hopes to bring them within our tariff wall, and thereby
to help ourselves.
Stripped of its sugar covering, the secretary's policy
is to keep the islands without political liberty for generations, to plant there American citizens and American
capital. to Americanize them and make them profitable,
and thus to cement the tie so that it cannot be broken.
This is to say, "The Philippines for the Filipinos," but
to mean, "The Philippines for the Americans,"-with as
much liberty to the Filipinos thrown in as is not inconsistent with American interests.
However Secretary Taft may phrase it, the end and
object of-his policy is a permanent colonial system,
maintained by the absolute power of the United States,
until the Filipinos become contented   subjects.  It
means their independence never.
HE MISSTATES HIS OPPONENTS.
He says that those who desire Philippine independ



27
ence ask the United States "to turn the government (of
the Philippines) over to a small minority made. up of a
cabal of violent military men, maintaining their power
by an army and terrorism and assassination." Waiving
the question how our own power has been established
and maintained, and saying nothing of Samar, I would
emphatically deny that any such request is made by
any opponent of Mr. Taft.
We ask that the people of the Philippines be given
the opportunity to form a government for themselves,
to frame their own constitution, and to choose their own
rulers. We point to the course adopted in Cuba as a
precedent, though we wish no Platt amendment. We
would have this country by agreement with foreign powers secure the independence of the new state as the independence of Switzerland and Belgium is secured, A
nation which boasts that it has con iled "the open
door" in China can at least do this. We would remind
our fellow-countrymen of the gloomy prophecies which
preceded the establishment of the Cuban republic, now
falsified. We would recall the examples of Mexico and
Japan. which have- risen to power by oux assistance, but
not under our sway. We would see the Philippines
another Cuba, and so on this anniversary, when we cele-brate the Declaration of Independence, we shall be enabled again with heads erect to uphold it in all its original significance instead of trying to explain it away
and limit its application, as Senator Douglas did in defense of domestic slavery and as Secretary Taft did in
defense of "criminal aggression" in his speech on Tuesday last.
The policy of the administration in the Philippine
islands is wrong,-morally, economically, politically
wrong. and from wrong nothing but evil can come. "I
tremble for my -country when I reflect that God is
just," said Jefferson, but his countrymen went on cheerfully claiming that they as the superior race had a right
to own and use as they would their inferiors, the
negroes, and that slavery was a benevolent institution,
promoting the real welfare of the slave, while incidentally profiting the master.
The argument of the slave owner then is the argu —
ment of Secretary Taft now, and it prevailed "until
every drop of blood drawn by the lash" was "paid




28
by another drawn by the sword," and Jefferson's
fears were realized in the Civil War, with its long
train of evil consequences.  The American of today will
do well to lay this lesson of history to heart, and to remember that rod is still just, lest another generation
may reap a yet more bitter harvest from the seed of evil
which Secretary Taft and his associates have sown.
July 4, 1904.
Appendi. A.    In his speech at Cambridge on June
28th, Secretary Taft treated this paragraph as "a general charge that facts coming from the Islands are suppressed." and said "This is wholly untrue."  Touching
the report of Col. Gardener he said:
And now the charge of suppression is renewed with reference to the so-called Gardener report as to conditions of
the conduct of the war in Tayabas, Batangas and Laguna.
A board of officers was convened with a Recorder. Col.
Gardener was furnished counsel by the civil government.
The Board filed a report which I have never seen because
it was filed while I was on my way to the Islands, but I
understand from Col Gardener himself that it resulted in
a finding of not proven. He maintained that his report
was confidential, that he had not intended it' for publication, and that rather than call military officers as witnesses to conversations he had had with them, he would
withdraw the charges founded on such statements. I believe that generally his native witnesses failed him from
timidity or other cause; though he justified himself by a
number of exparte affidavits which he did not use in court
as he could not, but merely kept to show in case of an attack on him that he had not acted without warrant. On
such a finding, of course, there was no ground for action
by the War Department.
This statement, when we examine it, admits that the
truth was suppressed. Col. Gardener was the governor
of a province and made a report which reflected severely
upon the conduct of United States officers and disclosed
deplorable conditions in certain districts.  Secretary
Taft does not suggest that it was not true, but says first
that it was "confidential" and not intended for publication."  That is, this disagreeable truth was to be kept
secret and not disclosed to the American public, while
apparently the other reports were intended for publication.
Admitting that this was a confidential communication. intended by an officer of repute to inform his su



29
periors, the Philippine Commission, of abuses which required correction and punishment, how was it treated?
Was any attempt made to punish the offenders?    Did
the Commission proceed'against them and use the evidence which Col. Gardener had?    On the contrary, he
was made the defendant. Was any attempt made to
discover the truth?  On the contrary, Gardener was allowed to withdraw charges rather than call witnesses.
Affidavits could not-be used, but the men who made
them might have been called and were not.
The native witnesses, who had failed "from timidity" might have been     reassured.  Had the purpose been to suppress the truth, what better
method could have been devised than to make the
accuser the defendant and to give him as a tribunal a
court of army officers whose comrades in arms had been
accused;-in a word, to make him feel that he had done
wrong to speak the truth, and to let him withdraw his
accusations as the easiest way out of the trouble for all
parties? The proceedings of the court and' its report
if published would show how the work was done. One
cannot but marvel why Secretary Taft considers that a
charge of suppressing the truth is met by such a statement as he made.
I should add that on consulting the record I do not
find that the report of this court was specifically called
for in the Senate Resolution.
Appendix B.    To this paragraph Secretary Taft at
Cambridge made the following reply:
The charge that the Superintendent of Education warned
his teachers not to write letters home for the purpose of
suppressing the truth in this country is ludicrously incorrect. It was not to prevent their reaching here. It was
to prevent their return to the Islands. The fact was that
in numbers of cases, school teachers would write home
holding up to ridicule the Filipino people, ' eir civilization, their morality, or their religion. Their letters would
be published in this country. If they criticized the religion of the Filipinos as they sometimes did, their letters
would be rightly condemned by their co-religionists in this
country as improper expressions from teachers of Catholic
youth, and their removal would be demanded. The school
question is a delicate question with the Catholics at any
rate and as we have many Protestant teachers, we have a
right to insist that they shall not destroy their usefulness
by publications tending to show a partisan religious bias.
If they, on the other hand, held the Filipinos up to ridicule, the articles would be copied in the American papers




30
in Manila and translated into Spanish and the Filipino dialects and would quickly reach the neighborhood where the
writer of the letter lived and would utterly destroy his usefulness in that neighborhood by rendering him unpopular
and destroying the confidence of the natives in him. It
was attempted by the writers to avoid responsibility for
such letters by the statement that they were confidential
and were not intended for publication, but the evil had
been done. The admonitions of Superintendent Bryan had
the motive I have explained and had not the slightest purpose to keep the truth from the American people.
It may be said in passing that the fact "that in numbers of cases" teachers wrote home "holding up to ridicule the Filipino people, their civilization, their morality or their religion' thr'ows a flood of light upon the
character of the teachers. No one who holds his pupils
in contempt can ever be useful as a teacher.'
But the language of Mr. Bryan's circular is the best
answer to the Secretary. As recorded in the "Report of
the Philippine Commission," vol. I, pp. 264, 265, Mr.
Bryan reports to the Commission:
I am sending to all division superintendents and teachers a circular which contains the following paragraphs:
The first paragraph calls their attention to the rule
that "teachers shall not teach or criticise the doctrines
of any church, religious sect or denomination," and
bids them observe it on pain of dismissal.
The second paragraph is as follows:
II. Because of your great distance from the States, and
the prevailing conditions here being so different from the
conditions there, it is very difficult for home people to correctly understand many things that we may be disposed to
say to them in letters. They get a wrong impression, talk
matters over freely, and frequently allow letters to be published, thus multiplying the wrong impression many
times. Recently I have had my attention called to two
cases of this kind, which have resulted in great embarrassment to the authors of the letters and considerable annoyance to the civiLcommission and this office. Teachers
are requested to exercise such care as the situation demands, both in their statements and by special direction
to correspondents that all private communications shall be
treated as such. Any misuse of matter sent to the States
will be treated as if authorized by the party sending it.
The first proposition which is there laid down is that
"it is very difficult for home people to correctly understand many things that we may be disposed to say to
them in letters." The publication complained of is the
publication in the United States "thus-multiplving the






31
wrong impression many times." It will be observed
that the paragraph nowhere suggests any trouble arising
from publication in the Philippines. and yet if the object of the circular was to prevent this, it is difficult to
account for the omission of any reference to this main
object.
No one can read this circular and not see that it was
the impression which letters would make on the people
at home and not on the Filipinos that was present to
Mr. Bryan's mind when he penned his circular and
that he wished to prevent. The statement which Secretary Taft calls "ludicrously incorrect" is abundantly
justified.